Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles load testing using a high power scope

GF1: If your contention were true then Bench Rest Competitors would all be using the much CHEAPER "3x" scopes like you allude to!
Your contention is erroneous - for obtaining the ultimate accuracy from a Rifle MANY people know its worth the dollars to use MORE scope power.
There is a LARGE difference in obtainable accuracy from a Rifle when one compares the results from a 3 power scope to that of the same Rifle/load using a 24 power scope.
I know - I done it!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Clos: I used to use a 24 power Leupold scope for my load development and Rifle testing chores - then once that was ascertained I would replace my 24 power testing scope with what ever scope I wanted permanently on said Rifle.
That worked out so well for me that I now have a 36 power scope that is dedicated to use just for load development and for testing some new to me Rifles accuracy potential.
I know its a bit of a pain to first mount a very high power scope and do the load testing for a particualr Rifle - THEN having to dismount that scope and install the chosen scope for said Rifle - but I am convinced it is worth the effort.
In fact a couple of my cheapskat.... uh I mean frugal friends have taken a positive attitude to this regimen of mine and have asked to borrow my "testing scope" for their testing - being the big softie I am I have given in on several occassions to thier requests.
Lesson to be learned when "loaning" out your testing scope: is to make certain there is a defined duration of said LOAN.
I found that an undefined loan out period causes hardship and consternation for the loaner and not so for the loanee.
Yes, clos, I have done this switching of scopes for quite some time now and recommend it to the person that has lots of Rifles and/or is serious about obtaining the most accurate loads for their Rifle QUICKLY!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

True, but on a positive note, he is consistent.

Hunter Benchrest vs Light Varmint Class

Never said there is no difference - clearly there is - just that the difference in the context of hunting rifles is overstated. For example, I have a 3x9x36 Swaro scope on a highly accurate Ruger #1 300 H&H; my groups at 9x are only marginally smaller, on average, than those at 3x. If one is developing loads for extreme accuracy, as in highly precise small bores for varmints or targets, I agree that the higher powers are important. On good targets, just not that much difference in aiming error that the higher power scope will help (in context of lighter hunting rifles).

What's a "Ladder Test"?

This another Internet-Speak Term for something we've doing for 50 years, but now we have a term for it...?

Sounds like a swell idea. Anyone have a suggestion which 36X scope I should get? I need to shake down my 358Norma this Spring....

(Please enable sarcasm detector!)

Dutch.

I don't remember it from when I was reloading 50 years ago, but it has been around a long time. It goes by different names but same basic principle. Some links:

Ladder Test
OCW Load Development
Incremental Load Development

I have started dong that occasionally when shooting a rifle with a 2x7 on it.

Temporarily put a 3.5-10 on and it made a diff in groups.

Must have something to do with 54 year old eyes--'cause I didn't have this problem 30 years ago.........


Casey

I've more than one rifle and curiously enough,more than one scope.

I'm all ears on your X-power magnification,to accuracy denotation extrapolation(s). It's all between your ears and will be funnier than hell.

In fairness,few is a simple as you,which ain't a compliment.............

Poking your head in the sand,ain't exactly a new move for you.

Congratulations?...............

I have a 32x scope I use on new rifles,to see their potential.
I think being able to quarter a 1" spot on the target with the cross hair is an aid to accuracy,as opposed to covering it,and then some.
I bought a commercial 98 in '06,for a donor,and put the 32 on,just to see.Grabbed some old loads I had made up for cmp practice.damned if it didnt go 1/2",straight off.
best it'd do (or me) with 2x7 was 1 1/4".

I do and I'm unapologetic about it. IMO it's indisputable that higher magnification allows for more precise bench shooting and precise shooting is the primary objective of testing a load's accuracy.

I enjoy and use a 24X fine crosshair scope and punched this .15" 3-shot cluster and have no reason to believe higher magnification did not play a significant role. The fine crosshairs allow me to center within the wider .1" lines that grid the target shown at 100 yards. I can assure that I can not do that at 4x or 6x and that I enjoyed punching that group more than printing yet another 3/4" trifecta. FWIW, that group was made with a used Savage 12 BVSS 22-250, old Japanese made Tasco 24x AO, used Lee Challenger press, Varget dipped with a spoon, weighed on a temperamental ancient Lyman D-7 scale, untrimmed and unturned RP UMC brass, Hornady ND seater and Lee Collet neck die... OT

I do.

I don't.

6x42 Montucky Whizzum MPAJ....................

You are absolutley full of schitt and clueless as to what you are talking about...but you are a entaining azz..will give you that..

Clasic Dipstick.

LC

Sub .5MOA at 700+ yards,with a 6x42/Montucky/162 combo.

RINK

You gals that don't shoot,is great for giggles...keep it rollin'!.................

I like to use the scope that is going to ride on the rifle permanently for load development. By the time your done with load workup you know if the scope/rifle combo is a good match.

Dunno if my vote counts or not since the highest powered scope I have is my Leupold, Vari-XIII, 4 1/2-14 Tactical. But I'm using it to work up loads for my .270 WSM. My other rifles were bought before I had the larger Leupold so it wasn't used on them. Once this project is finalized, the WSM is gonna wear a 2-7, Vari-X II.
Bear in Fairbanks